What Manospherians get right and which of them?

hipergamy [sic]

Not really. Assortative mating (AM), height and fertility correlation = 0, etc.

hibristophilia

Definitely not. Just hood weebs moaning about assortative mating among low class women. Never met a smart woman that likes thugs lol.

Pareto law in female attraction toward males

The curve they call pareto is log-normal, so no. And it’s the result of measure-variance, the true curve should be normal per AM.

ginocentrism

Yes. People are innately predisposed to empathize more with women and children. Laws revolve around women’s interests far too much. Pretty obvious considering we live under “feminism.” What could feminism mean other than to privilege women more than gnon willed?

hypergamy - Wrong, women in modern culture are sluts seeking evil morons for reasons I explained here.

hybristophilia - Yes, see above

Pareto law - Basically yes. I don’t know the formula or the exact percentage, but a small percentage of men monopolize all the sluts.

gynocentrism - Not particularly. All societies value women over men. Modern culture particularly values sluts and psychopathic men.

Yes, see above

Only trashy women. Some criminality is masculine anyway.

I don’t know the formula or the exact percentage, but a small percentage of men monopolize all the sluts.

This isn’t true. It’s hard to walk around a university campus looking at the couples and maintain this belief. And it’s hard to talk to people who are married or have a girlfriend and believe this.

All societies value women over men. Modern culture particularly values sluts and psychopathic men.

Modern society puts mildly psychopathic men in jail forever based on very little. Most societies have extended far more privileges to men than this one. This one is the most gynocentric because it is the most empathy driven, whereas other societies were more driven by war and competition.

The main function of “manosphere” content is to refute feminist blank-slate premises in order to think more clearly about sex dynamics, unburdened by the ambient modern messages that make it harder to do so. The manosphere’s model of men and women is only “wrong” in the sense that the model of the world in your physics problems where air resistance and friction don’t exist is “wrong” - the point is to strip back the messy real-world features so you can understand certain variables in isolation. But there’s a difference between accepting that asymmetries between the sexes exist and reducing everyone to those asymmetries, and that’s where a lot of manosphere fans get stuck. They get too cocky thinking everyone’s story should fit that neat first-semester narrative.

A narrative is not a scientific model anyway. Manosphere stuff is based on “bro science” epsistemology, which is junk. My comment gives an actually scientific take.

Right, I don’t want to knock “bro-science epistemology” because “If the social science establishment says one thing and your observations clearly say another, don’t ignore your observations” isn’t always a bad heuristic for politically contested matters. There are consequential politically incorrect patterns that the establishment insists on downplaying and denying, and people want a framework that gets the establishment narrative out of the way and makes sense of them all. In practice, this means any data confirming the manosphere narrative is “See?!” and any data weakening it is “Well, you can’t trust social science anyway!”

Point out, say, that women with college degrees are more likely to get married and less likely to get divorced, and you’ll get, “Nuh uh, don’t you know college ruins women?” To someone who actually knows that education is understood to be a proxy for IQ and conscientiousness, which are strong predictors for marital outcomes, the finding isn’t surprising, but to someone who’s swallowed the manosphere “what’s wrong with wahmen today” narrative, it just doesn’t fit. Similarly, men with higher premarital partner counts have higher divorce rates and lower marital satisfaction, which again makes sense to someone who knows the real variables of the problem but not to those who lionize male promiscuity and frame these men as the successful high-value ones who pull women on their own terms.

A lot of fans just don’t care about sociological rigor as much as they care about spreading politically incorrect content that flatters them and makes women look bad.

A lot of fans just don’t care about sociological rigor as much as they care about spreading politically incorrect content that flatters them and makes women look bad.

Yes, arguments as soldiers.

this means any data confirming the manosphere narrative is “See?!” and any data weakening it is “Well, you can’t trust social science anyway!”

, that women with college degrees are more likely to get married and less likely to get divorced, and you’ll get, “Nuh uh, don’t you know college ruins women?”

And stupidity. Most people can’t understand statistics. It’s a big mystery to them. 105 IQ people need a podcastable Narrative. It’s just how their brains work. Unless this narrative is made me and Cremieux and Emil Kirkegaard, it will fail to be the projection of the truth onto stupid space. It will deviate. And there is no reason why podcasts would exclusively cover what I and Cremieux say about manosphere-adjacent topics, so it will deviate. And the deviations will usually be political in nature because that’s what motivates the yappers that make them up.

So it’s stupidity + arguments as soldiers.